PRNewser Feedhttp://www.adweek.com/prnewser
Covering the latest in public relationsCopyright 2015Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:10:35 +0000http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1No One Can Decide Whether Hillary Clinton’s Comms Fail Is a ScandalIn what will probably serve as a sign of things to come over the next 18+ months, The New York Times broke what looks like the first potentially scandalous story of sure-to-be-candidate Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

In short, she skirted official rules while serving as Secretary of State by never using an official government email address…or did she?!

Here’s NYT reporter Michael Schmidt explaining his scoop on TODAY:

Hillary injects politics into almost everything? What is she, a career politician?

While a Clinton spokesperson defended the move as something that past Secretaries of State such as Colin Powell have also done, former Obama administration Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called the decision “highly unusual” and theorized that “it’s something that they’re going to have to explain in good measure today.”

So the memes, the basic back-and-forth, and the questions regarding Mrs. Clinton’s famous Twitter avatar have already begun despite the fact that she has yet to declare her candidacy.

Here’s a take from Kashmir Hill, security reporter at Fusion:

Clinton’s email move was terrible for transparency but great for easily staying in touch with powerful people. http://t.co/Z4ctWx3UtO

Johson’s entire thread provides an interesting take on the story. Some critics will dismiss his opinion immediately, but he did co-found Blue State Digital…the group that played a key role in helping Obama defeat Hillary in 2008.

So was Clinton’s email decision a way to keep certain information under wraps, or was it all about convenience of communication?

Expect to hear more than a few references to these ghostly emails over the next few months.

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'”

-Matthew 4:1-4

Fasting is a tenet in faith, specifically for Roman Catholics during this time of year called Lent. It’s a time for reflection and meditation during which church members give up something important like, say, food.

Chris Christie was slowly moving along the campaign when he ended up at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for a sit-down with radio host/firebrand Laura Ingraham. It was then that he put his alms before men (which is a no-no) and told everyone in attendance what essential pleasure he is courageously avoiding during Lent.

SPOILER: it’s The New York Times.

The Times is not a card-carrying member of the New Jersey Governor’s fan club, but is the Old Grey Lady really a temptress that requires fasting?

\"I don’t subscribe to the New York Times,\" Christie said. \"I don’t care what they write about me.\"

\"I gave up the New York Times for Lent,\" Christie joked, \"but my parish priest told me that doesn’t count, because for Lent, you have to give up something you’ll actually miss.\"

Oh, we get it. That was a joke.

The CPAC crowd is notoriously bad at abstaining from food, alcohol, and other such earthly delights, so… ah, never mind.

There’s never a bolt of lightning around when you need one.

]]>Shawn Paul Woodhttp://www.adweek.com/prnewser/guess-what-chris-christie-gave-up-for-lent-the-new-york-times/109899#disqus_thread
Shawn Paul Wood
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/guess-what-chris-christie-gave-up-for-lent-the-new-york-times/109899
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/?p=109899Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:30:07 +00005 Questions on the Future of Political Advocacy for Joe FuldYou don’t have to be a political junkie to know that our federal government is stuck: observers expect a lot of grandstanding and very little legislating as we enter the next stage of what feels like “perpetual campaign mode.”

For this very reason, so-called “grassroots advocacy” is more important than ever; look no further than the continued march toward same-sex marriage rights.

Today we spoke to Joe Fuld — president of The Campaign Workshop, Inc., former Northeast Political Director for the Democratic National Committee, and admitted “policy wonk” — to learn more about what that means for politically-oriented comms professionals.

1. What’s the most important thing PR professionals need to know about the state of advocacy today?

Message matters.

Having a clearly defined message transcends time, and it’s relevant whether the campaign first ran 15 years ago or today. This is something folks need to work on.

Taglines can become a crutch, because sometimes we get focused on words that we like rather than emotions that connect with people. The key to success is trying to figure out the balance: \"How is our effort going to stand out and create a real contrast with the folks on the other side?\"

It’s about showing the difference between the opposition (which may or may not represent the status quo) and what you are going to do.

If you’re able to call on 15, 20, or 100 REAL activists to retweet, distribute posts, or send a real letter to a representative, that’s real value. No more faux connections via contacts.

The algorithmic changes happening at Facebook, et al are about a desire to see that sort of real connection.

The ROI of such efforts is now very clear, and you can track conversions, sign-ups, and “contact a legislator” actions in real-time. Frankly, the lists you build afterward now have greater value as well.

These technologies are changing the way legislation happens — especially on the state level, where he have more movement. But you’re correct in thinking that we can’t expect big changes on the federal level [at this time].

3. What’s the big takeaway from the book?

Messaging matters, but tactics also make a big difference.

Advocacy campaigns are not just two-week or two-months affairs now: they are long-term, day-in-day-out efforts.

These big issues aren’t going away anytime soon, so we’re taking what used to be tactics used in political campaigns and moving them to the advocacy side. There’s a real need to do long-term planning.

Advocacy used to be about “grass tops” work and lobbyists meeting with legislators, but now you need real activism behind the effort: this applies to everything from CPA (cost per action) campaigns and list-building to connecting with activists in different districts and developing long-term relationships.

4. What should upcoming communications professionals who are passionate about advocacy do to prepare?

Learning about the latest tactics is great, but getting involved and figuring out how to move causes on a small scale is most important.

I would suggest getting the boards of local organizations involved to make change happen in your community to start. It doesn’t have to be something “big”; it could be getting a four-way stop at your local corner.

All the pieces matter.

Reach out to local representatives independently if you want to make changes in your community. You can’t get that stop sign changed unless you visit your neighbors and get them to sign a petition.

The same model applies in getting a larger law changed: email and visit your legislators.

5. Could you give us some recent examples of successful advocacy campaigns?

2. The Food and Water Watch “Take Back the Tap” campaign [which encouraged consumers to buy fewer bottles of water].

The Campaign Workshop hosts its own advocacy case studies on its website.

]]>Patrick Coffeehttp://www.adweek.com/prnewser/5-questions-on-the-future-of-political-advocacy-for-joe-fuld/109771#disqus_thread
Patrick Coffee
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/5-questions-on-the-future-of-political-advocacy-for-joe-fuld/109771
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/?p=109771Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:45:17 +0000The Meat Industry Isn’t Happy About New Dietary Guideline RecommendationsNutrition experts brought in at the request of the Obama administration have recommended that the environment — in addition to health and wellness — should be considered in any revised dietary guidelines. To that end, they suggested more fish and vegetables for the American diet, which, according to a chart published in The Wall Street Journal, favors tacos, hamburgers and sweets.

The recommendation isn’t sitting well with the meat industry, who are clearly under the impression that there’s an anti-meat Illuminati at play. Not only do they criticize the recommendations for not taking into account the eco-friendlier nature of their processes but also for downplaying the value of a diet that includes red meat.

“Suggesting a diet lower in red meat is not consistent with science…we need to be specific and clear because people need good advice on what to eat,\" said Shalene McNeill, head of nutrition research at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

On the other end, there’s this (again from the WSJ):

According to Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future, large-scale animal operations can generate large amounts of waste, pollute waterways and produce greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The committee said the global production of food is responsible for 80% of deforestation and more than 70% of freshwater use.

And then you have the argument that Americans don’t eat well, causing the obesity epidemic, and should be encouraged to chow down on fruits and veg a lot more.

The concern from the meat industry is justified. Recent studies show that Americans are growing more worried about climate change, including Republicans. And Hispanics, a demographic that’s only getting bigger, are increasingly saying that climate change is a problem. And it’s a problem that impacts them personally. Nothing motivates people to take action more than something that has an effect that people can feel directly. Stories like this don’t help.

But the industry’s concern shouldn’t be confined to just this one area. Americans are getting a bigger glimpse of farm practices with stories about things like gestation crates and California’s egg rules (though the recommendations did include a note about doing away with the hubbub about cholesterol). And the growing popularity of Meatless Mondays ties all of this together.

The meat industry, in other words, needs to take a look at the growing unease that Americans have with the ways in which meat reaches their plates and the consequences of their eating habits. Fighting for your livelihood and the right for Americans to enjoy a meal is one thing. To do so at the seeming disregard of other factors of interest to the eating population (aka everybody) is another. There needs to be some sensitivity from meat producers going forward — for the animals they raise and the people who eat them. And that needs to come through in messaging and responses.

image via Shutterstock

]]>Tonya Garciahttp://www.adweek.com/prnewser/the-meat-industry-isnt-happy-about-new-dietary-guideline-recommendations/109765#disqus_thread
Tonya Garcia
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/the-meat-industry-isnt-happy-about-new-dietary-guideline-recommendations/109765
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/?p=109765Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:59:23 +0000Hillary Clinton Has Got Consumer Marketers Working on Her BrandThe Washington Postsays Hillary Clinton has brought on a cadre of consumer marketing specialists to help fashion her brand in preparation for her next run for the White House.

“Clinton and her image-makers are sketching ways to refresh the well-established brand for tomorrow’s marketplace,” the paper says. “In their mission to present voters with a winning picture of the likely candidate, no detail is too big or too small — from her economic opportunity agenda to the design of the ‘H’ in her future campaign logo.”

The paper goes on to identify a big challenge for Clinton, who has been in the public eye in a number of capacities — First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, etc. — for decades: presenting herself to a voting population that thinks it knows her already. Many other contenders will be able to introduce themselves during their campaigns.

(Of course, everything in politics has its pros and cons. Studies also show that incumbents have a leg up on opponents who are too new to voters.)

“Look at Budweiser,\" said one anonymous expert who spoke with WaPo. \"That’s what Hillary Clinton is. She’s not a microbrew. She’s one of the biggest, most powerful brands ever in the country, and recognizing that is important.\"

We know the issues that Bud is having with its image. So it will indeed be key to give Hillary a touch up that separates her present from her past while still creating that thread throughout her career that is cohesive and builds continuity into her campaign story. Tall order.

The two marketing dynamos leading this rebrand are:

Wendy Clark, who specializes in marketing age-old brands such as Coca-Cola to younger and more diverse customers; and Roy Spence, a ­decades-long Clinton friend who dreamed up the \"Don’t Mess With Texas\" anti-littering slogan as well as flashy ad campaigns for Southwest Airlines and Wal-Mart.

The foundation of this effort needs to be authenticity. That will include her intelligence, her experience as well as her sense of humor and other charms, which are clearly on display when she speaks live and tweets but can sometimes go missing when she’s on the campaign trail. And she needs to activate those loyal supporters who have been waiting for the chance to vote Hillary into the presidency.

From gleeful TV shows to a village of people in music, the struggle for gay equality has been gaining steam for decades: domestic partners now qualify for insurance, sexual orientation is no longer frowned upon (by most), and, depending on who you ask, federal same-sex marriage rights may soon become a reality.

Yet 17 states still ban same-sex marriage, and some advocates still feel the need to educate the nation like Graham Moore so eloquently did at the Oscars with his inspirational battle cry of “Stay Weird. Stay Different.”

Ergo, the need for the State Department to make an unprecedented move by naming Randy Berry as its first-ever international envoy for gay rights to help coordinate U.S. strategy and address discrimination around the world.

To be technical, Berry (who was Consul-General in Amsterdam) is now Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. That’s a really fancy way to say he represents the U.S. government with full (Latin: plenus) power (Latin: potens) but is not a head of state. It’s a British thing that the colonists brought over.

The Washington Post tells us this measure, proposed by Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), wasn’t approved last year. This year, however, the result was different:

“Defending and promoting the human rights of LGBT persons is at the core of our commitment to advancing human rights globally -– the heart and conscience of our diplomacy,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said.

Party politics aside, this is about “addressing discrimination,” which shouldn’t be acceptable for any group of people in America.

The city is Bloomington, Minnesota — as in the home of the Mall of America.

The shopping saturnalia is the Great American Melting Pot. It’s so large, seven Yankee Stadiums, 32 Boeing 747s or 258 Statue of Liberties (on her side) could fit inside. According to CNN and U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, this fact makes it a prime target for terrorist groups like Al-Shabaab:

“If anyone is planning to go to the Mall of America today, they’ve got to be particularly careful,” Johnson said. “There will be enhanced security there, but public vigilance, public awareness and public caution in situations like this is particularly important, and it’s the environment we’re in, frankly.”

\"[This is a] new phase [in] terms of the global terrorism threat … that is more complex, more decentralized, more diffused. … The reason I think we’re all concerned about this is because it encourages strike with very little notice to our intelligence community, our law enforcement community here at home.\"

It’s not the first time the Mall of America has been targeted, and it almost certainly won’t be the last. In the meantime, the Mall’s communications team might need to work a bit more than usual to convince customers to visit:

While the business has not directly addressed Johnson’s statements, it has witnessed and responded to an increase in related “jokes” on social media:

]]>Shawn Paul Woodhttp://www.adweek.com/prnewser/mall-of-america-shoppers-warned-of-potential-terrorist-threat/109516#disqus_thread
Shawn Paul Wood
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/mall-of-america-shoppers-warned-of-potential-terrorist-threat/109516
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/?p=109516Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:05:49 +0000Hilarious Campaign Lampoons FDA’s Celibacy Rule for Gay Blood DonorsIn case you missed it, the FDA recently decided to lift a longtime ban on homosexual and bisexual men who want to donate blood; the new rules will finally allow such donations — provided the donor in question has been celibate for an entire year.

Seriously? This is progress?

In response to the new regulation, GLAAD and the Gay Men’s Health Crisishave partnered with Saatchi and Bullit director Ari Sandel to create a new campaign titled “Celibacy Challenge,” complete with a petition, hashtag (#CelibacyChallenge), and faux PSA (below), in which actor Alan Cumming helpfully suggests multiple activities one might partake in to alleviate sexual tension during a year without sex — including sculpting suggestively-shaped ceramic masterpieces, polishing phallic trophies, and popping bottles of pent-up champagne.

There is, however, another way to approach a year of FDA-mandated celibacy. As Cumming points out at the end of the spot:

“Or there’s another option: sign our petition, then share this video to pressure the FDA to change its questionnaire so donors are screened based on their exposure to risk, and not their sexual orientation.”

An eye-catching, laugh-out-loud campaign in support of a compelling petition with a purpose that promotes health and equality? We’re calling this a win; someone give these guys a trophy to (not) polish.

]]>Elizabeth S. Mitchellhttp://www.adweek.com/prnewser/hilarious-campaign-lampoons-fdas-celibacy-rule-for-gay-blood-donors/109537#disqus_thread
Elizabeth S. Mitchell
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/hilarious-campaign-lampoons-fdas-celibacy-rule-for-gay-blood-donors/109537
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/?p=109537Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:55:33 +0000Obama Strategist Reveals the Real Story Behind ‘Yes We Can!’Back in August 2008, a young up-and-comer from Illinois made history when he accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination to run for the White House. Swollen with pride and purpose, the novice Senator (and veteran orator) adopted the now-famous campaign slogan “Yes we can!”

Can you blame him, really?

The mad scientist behind that campaign was David Axelrod, who served as chief strategist and senior adviser to both Obama and Joe Biden for six years. Today, he’s enjoying the bounties of a book tour promoting his memoir Believer: My 40 Years in Politics.

During his campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama thought that your famous \"Yes we can\" line was corny. How did you convince him?

Michelle just happened to come by for the first ad shoot, and that was the ad that closed with the line \"Yes we can.\" He read through the script once, and after the first take he said, \"Gee, is that too corny?\" I explained why I thought it was a great tagline, and he turned to Michelle and said, \"What do you think?\" She just slowly shook her head from side to side and said, \"Not corny.\" Thank God she was there that day.

You know what they say: “Behind every great man there’s a great woman”…and behind both of them there’s an army of messaging experts and PR professionals.

Still, there’s something to be said for listening to your most important influencer…

Just when Jeb Bush decided to go full-court press in his quest for the White House and fight “starched white folks’ candidate” stereotypes by claiming to have been “digital before digital was cool,” he had to let his brand new chief technology officer go over comments made aboutRev. Dr. Martin Luther King.

Ethan Czahor already had a reputation as a dude in need of a charm school scholarship: as co-founder of Hipster.com, he was a known advocate of tweed, facial hair products, strong coffee, and general smugness.

In January 2008, while working as the host of the radio program “The Ethan Show” at East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania, Czahor took the opportunity to praise Martin Luther King, Jr. while making backhanded generalizations about “blacks.” The website is no longer operational, but Internet.

While praising the historic “I Have a Dream” speech, he said:

First of all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a well-dressed, extremely well-spoken man; he didn’t have his pants sagged to his ankles, and he wasn’t delivering his speech in “jibberish” or “slang” (ie. he wasn’t speaking like a rapper).

He understood that looking respectable and speaking clearly and concisely isn’t a trait of white men — it’s a trait of intelligent men. He also understood that, while slavery was a terrible practice and certainly a blemish on America’s resumé, America is still the greatest country in the world. He doesn’t dwell on the negative past; instead, he urges all (not just black) Americans to look forward.

In other words, he doesn’t drone on about every little problem a black person has faced in their life; and then suggested solutions such as: blacks need more money (ie. welfare programs) or more racial-based preferences (ie. quotas) in the workplace.

He continued, saying that “black parents need to get their sh@# together, as the majority of newborn black babies belong to single-parent households.”

The #learning and #maturing weren’t enough to forgive this rant, which almost certainly ended his very, very short career in politics.

Of course, Czahor tweeted his resignation. The more things change, the more they stay the same…